News

21 February 2024

Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva again alerted Social Minister Ivanka Shalapatova and the Governor of the National Social Security Institute (NSSI) Ivaylo Ivanov that the Ombudsman Institution continues to receive many complaints from citizens with disabilities about the payment of the disability pensions due to them.

Prof. Kovacheva emphasizes that because of poor health and unemployment the disability pensions are the only source of income for people with disabilities and they live on it: they pay for the utilities of their homes; they buy their medicines; they meet the expense of their prescribed treatment and rehabilitation.

“In view of the nature of the pensions and their purpose, it is essential that the sums due should be adequately paid in full from the date of entitlement subject to the Social Security Code (SSC) provisions that play a determining role in that,” the Ombudsman wrote.

Diana Kovacheva emphasizes that, on the one hand, the problems of citizens who are recipients of disability pensions pertain to misinterpretation and misapplication of existing legal texts, and on the other hand, to the need for amendments to the Code.

In the first place, among the problems the Ombudsman singles out the revocation of disability pensions by the NSSI whenever the National Medical Expert Board (NMEB) cancels or reverts the expert decision of the Territorial Medical Expert Board (TMEB) for a new pronouncement.

”Art. 98, para 7 of the Code reads that if the decisions of the TMEB and NMEB are appealed by the chair of the medical panel or as per the procedure of Art. 112 of the Health Act, a disability pension shall be granted, resumed or regranted in the amount of the social old age pension, until the entry into effect of the decision of the National Medical Expert Board, or of the ruling by the court reviewing the appealed decision of the medical expert assessment authorities respectively,” Diana Kovacheva wrote.

The Ombudsman emphasizes that upon appeal of the expert board’s decision that pronounces 50 per cent and over 50 per cent long-term limited capability for work, the pension shall not be revoked completely while the disability pension shall be paid in an amount of the old age social pension.

In the event of cancellation of the decision that determines 50 per cent or over 50 per cent type and extent of disability/extent of long-term limited capability for work and the file is reverted to be reconsidered by the administrative authority that issued the initial decision, the NSSI Territorial Divisions have opted for the suspension of the disability pensions regardless of the provision of Art. 98, para 7.

“The provision is special in relation to the general rules of Art. 95, para 1 of the Code. The purpose of the entitlement of the insured person under conditions laid down in the provision is to make possible to provide money to meet the vital needs of such individuals until the final pronouncement on long-term limited capability for work,” the Ombudsman points out and insists on a correct interpretation and application of the provision of Art. 98, para 7 of the Code so as to guarantee the interests of the citizens thus hurt.

There is yet another problem related to Art. 98, para 7, whereby a disability pension shall be granted, resumed or regranted to the individuals entitled in the amount of the old age social pension and not in the amount of the real pension that they are entitled to having met the requirements of Art. 72 and Art. 74 of the Social Security Code.

“The complaints report that as per Art. 112, para 9, sentence 1 of the Health Act, the appeal pursuant to Art. 112, paras 1-8 against the medical expert boards’ decisions on long-term limited capability for work/type and extent of disability, shall not stop their implementation. Sentence 2 clearly reads that during the period of appeal against the expert decisions on long-term limited capability for work/type and extent of disability, the individual shall enjoy the rights arising from the appealed expert decision, and in the event of that the type and extent of disability is reduced and this leads to a reduction or elimination of the support granted, the reassessed person shall not reimburse the extra amount received,” the Ombudsman wrote emphatically.

The Ombudsman notes that the limitation of the granted disability pension to the amount of the old-age social pension as provided for in Art. 98, para 7 of the Code currently appears to be in conflict with the provisions of Art. 112, para 9 of the Health Act and Art. 72 of the Social Security Code and with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus, in practice, citizens with disabilities are deprived of the opportunity to receive the money that they need and that they are entitled to in the form of a full disability pension.

Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends amendments to Art 98, para 7 of the Code to solve this problem therewith.

The long time that it takes the NSSI to resume payments subject to a reassessment of the individuals is another unsolved problem as the Ombudsman’s reiterated position is that once the TMEB or NMEB decision is issued, the due support to people with disabilities should be paid adequately and without any delay.

“Not least come complaints concerning the possibility for an easy passage from one type of pension to another and the choice of a pension whose amount is not to the best satisfaction. As the Ombudsman has repeatedly emphasized in her opinions, the Social Security Code provides for the possibility to choose a pension that is seen as a more favorable option. However, the Code does not provide for an opportunity to reject a pension that is more favorable and chose another type of pension that the individual concerned is entitled to but that is lower,” Prof. Kovacheva points out.

She also reminds of the problems caused by Art. 74 of the Code which requires that people with disabilities of 50 per cent and over 50 per cent in type and extent of disability/extent of long-term limited capability for work should have contributory service prior to the disablement to become entitled to a common disease invalidity pension.

“The many complaints lodged by citizens with disabilities show that a significant part of young people with disabilities, up to the age of 25, cannot acquire the required length of insured service. On the other side, children with disabilities below the age of 18 cannot get employment due to age restrictions and due to their disease. Once they are 18 years old and are no longer minors, they again face difficulties to find a job and to amass the years required for the record owing to the non-availability of jobs that suit their conditions and the still existing stigma about the capabilities and needs of these vulnerable citizens,” the Ombudsman concludes.

Another serious problem indicated concerns the provision of Art. 74 of the Social Security Code, on the solution of which the Ombudsman has been insisting for years: the requirement that the contributory service should be prior to the disablement.

The Ombudsman emphasizes that in many cases, the disablement precedes insured employment, which is required for granting a common disease invalidity pension, and the citizens continue to work after it.

“Practically, these citizens, with a similar insurance contribution as those who meet the requirements to be granted a common disease invalidity pension under Art. 74, and in some cases they even have a longer length of service, acquired however, after the date of the disablement, appear to be treated less favorably and stand at risk of unaffordability of the costs arising to compensate for the insufficiencies caused by the  disablement. This is so as the restrictions in the provision leave people with 50 to 70.99 per cent type and extent of disability/extent of long-term limited capability for work, who lack the required insured length of employment prior to the disablement, with only monthly benefits under Art. 70 of the Persons with Disabilities Act where the benefit is to amount to 7% of the poverty line or BGN 36.82 in 2024,” Diana Kovacheva argues.

In conclusion, the Ombudsman emphasizes that disability pensions are a substitution income in the event of partial or complete incapacitation to work for individuals before they reach retirement age and that these pensions help them meet their vital needs and, in addition, alleviate people in a vulnerable condition in their effort to live in dignity and to be active.