Introduction

The Office of the Ombudsman was established following the enactment of the Ombudsman Act by the House of Representatives, which received the assent of the President of Malta on the 21 July 1995, and became effective of the 15 November 1995.  The constitution of the Office marked a positive development towards further democratic governance in the administration of public services, where persons could seek redress for free from an independent and impartial institution.

As its primary mandate, the Office was intended to investigate grievances regarding acts or omissions of Government including decisions taken and practices applied by the public service and the public administration, and to recommend redress when injustice is determined. Yet to describe the Ombudsman simply as a complaint-handling office would be to diminish its true purpose as the Office stands for the promotion of real fairness in the administration of public governance, a bridge-building mechanism between the State and people, and overseer and catalyst of change for the better in the operations of Government.

The First Ombudsman

The first Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta, Mr Joseph Sammut, was appointed following a unanimous resolution of the House of Representatives on the 31st July 1995.

In his published reflections “Serving People and Parliament: The Ombudsman Institution” of 2020, Mr Sammut described the early days of the Office as “an instant success. Citizens having genuine grievances against the public administration could now resort to this new mechanism for ‘soft’ justice without the need of political intervention to back their claims.”

Mr Joseph Sammut taking the oath of office before the President of Malta H.E. Dr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, in the presence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Dr. Lawrence Gonzo, the Prime Minister of Malta, Hon. Dr Eddie Fenech Adami and the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Dr. Alfred Sant.

A graduate in economics and public administration, Mr Sammut served in Malta’s civil service for more than four decades, including as Head of the Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet. His deep understanding of government operations and commitment to public service ethics shaped the foundations of the Ombudsman institution. He led the Office for two full terms between 1995 and 2005, during which the Office established its credibility, independence, and moral authority.

The First Complaint

The first written complaint was investigated on the 22 November 1995. The complaint was lodged by Dr José Herrera, on behalf of a client, claiming money due by virtue of the Staff Savings Scheme of the now-defunct International Aeradio Limited. The case was investigated by Dr Brian Said, who at the time served as one of the Office’s first Investigating Officers and who today is the Head of Investigations of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Case No 1 - The complaint file of the first case to be investigated

Regarding the subject-matter in question, the Department of Civil Aviation, responsible to answer at the time, had directed the complainant to submit his greviance to the Commission for the Investigation of Injustices (Kummissjoni għall-Investigazzjoni ta’ Inġustizzji). When the Ombudsman Act came into force, the complaint was formally received for review.

In his final opinion, the Ombudsman, Mr Joseph Sammut, noted that the events in question had taken place between 1973 and 1979. Since the Ombudsman may only investigate matters that occurred within the six months preceding a complaint, the case fell outside his jurisdiction.

Despite this limitation, he still examined the grievance and confirmed that the Government had acted in line with the recommendation issued in 1991 by the Commission for the Investigation of Injustices, which had been applied only to those employees who had submitted their claims within the legal time limits. 

The complainant had not filed a claim within the prescribed period and therefore was not eligible for the compensation that had been granted to others.

While expressing understanding for the complainant’s position, the Ombudsman concluded that the authorities had acted according to law and that no maladministration or improper discrimination had occurred.

The raison d`etre

A crucial benefit for the existence of the Office is that when it investigates, it does not take sides but asks questions to get answers.  The Office investigates the administrative modus operandi of public bodies and will not hesitate the least to say when unfairness is perpetrated or people are treated poorly.  The Office provides a space that is safe because information that the Office gathers is secret, privileged and not subject to scrutiny by any court or tribunal.  The Office is also impartial and neutral founded on a non-adversarial approach and procedure that, unlike the courts, makes it more user friendly. That is the core reason why the Office was designed not only in Malta but practically everywhere in the world not to impart executive orders but make recommendations, not for public bodies to ignore, reject or discard, but plainly and simply to put things right.

The numbers

Over the past three decades, the Office of the Ombudsman received written 18,060 complaints from persons seeking fairness, transparency and accountability in matters of administration of Government.  An equally important number of 14,473 persons sought guidance or informal assistance from the Office highlighting over the span of time the ever-growing reputation as an accessible and trusted source of help.

The intervention of the Office has led to important reforms in public administration, improved service delivery, and greater respect for the rights of persons.  The figures stand as tangible evidence that independent and impartial oversight does not hinder but strengthens public governance.

A consistent, fresh and evolving institution

Over time, the Office of the Ombudsman continued to evolve to meet challenging scenarios.

2007 - The Office of the Ombudsman became a constitutional office, sealing its proven independence: a milestone in recognition of its past, an acknowledgement of the present, and a foundation for the future.

2012 - Independent Commissioners for Administrative Investigations were integrated within the Office, in order to extend the reach of the Office in matters of specialised interest in the administration of public affairs.  The Ombudman Act was amended in 2012 to address this positive innovation, and a specific legal notice was approved to regulate their operations.  Three Commissioners were appointed:  Health, Environment and Planning, and Education.

2020 - The Office of the Ombudsman was further entrenched and reinforced in the Constitution.

Looking Ahead

The Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon, addressing the 30th Anniversary official commemoration in the Throne Room of the Palace of the President of Malta in Valletta

In the presence of H.E., the President of Malta, Notary Myriam Spiteri Debono, the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta stated as follows:

“The strength of the institution is its proven independence, standing to be counted whenever necessary. The Office has made a significant difference in the lives of people, and this was made possible through the trust of all stakeholders.”

The Office will continue to serve with integrity, fairness, and transparency, guided by the same principles that inspired its creation.

Judge Zammit McKeon insisted:

“As we celebrate the past and present of the institution, we look with serenity towards the future with a renewed sense of purpose. The trust and support of the public inspire us to continue striving for better oversight. With that trust comes great responsibility, and we reaffirm our commitment to justify the confidence placed in us.”

Insisting on fairness

The Office of the Ombudsman remains what it was always meant to be: a guardian of good public governance and a voice for real justice. Its founding principle endures : no person should suffer injustice without a remedy and no act or omission in the administration of public affairs should stand beyond scrutiny.

As it enters its fourth decade, the institution looks attentively ahead with renewed confidence, adapting to new and fast challenges, embracing innovation and keeping steadfastly true to its mission in the promotion and protection of administrative justice, fairness and of the rights of all persons without distinction.

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, ha comparecido este lunes en el Congreso de los Diputados ante la Comisión Mixta Congreso-Senado de Relaciones con el Defensor del Pueblo, a propuesta de la Mesa de la Comisión y a petición de los grupos parlamentarios Popular y Vox.

Ángel Gabilondo ha sido requerido para explicar los motivos que le han llevado a interponer recurso de inconstitucionalidad contra la disposición adicional octava, la disposición transitoria única y la disposición final decimonovena de la Ley 1/2025, de 1 de abril, de Prevención de las Pérdidas y el Desperdicio Alimentario, que afecta al nivel de protección del lobo. También han solicitado su comparecencia para que informe sobre las actuaciones llevadas a cabo desde la institución Defensor del Pueblo en relación al funcionamiento de los dispositivos electrónicos para el seguimiento del cumplimiento de las penas y medidas de seguridad impuestas en los casos de violencia de género, y sobre la crítica situación del acceso a la vivienda ante los actuales precios de los alquileres.

Recurso a tres preceptos de la Ley 1/2025, de 1 de abril

El Defensor del Pueblo ha explicado que, tras haber recibido 279 escritos solicitando la interposición de recurso ante el Tribunal Constitucional y después de estudiar la norma en cuestión, decidió interponer recurso de inconstitucionalidad contra tres preceptos de la Ley 1/2025, de 1 de abril.

A su juicio, los preceptos impugnados tienen un elemento común, “giran alrededor de la misma cuestión: la desactivación de la protección del lobo al excluirlo del Listado de Especies Silvestres en Régimen de Protección Especial (LESRPE), que le otorga el artículo 56 de la Ley del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad”.

Ángel Gabilondo ha señalado que desde la institución se ha considerado, “que la disposición adicional octava y la disposición transitoria única no cumplen con el mandato derivado del artículo 45 de la Constitución de conciliar la actividad económica con la protección del medio ambiente, ponderando todos los valores constitucionales protegibles”. Por otra parte, la disposición final decimonovena constituiría “un ejemplo de ley singular autoaplicativa, una ley que no constituye un ejercicio normal de la potestad legislativa que no cumple con el canon fijado para las leyes de esta naturaleza en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional”.

El Defensor del Pueblo ha insistido en que su recurso de inconstitucionalidad “no tiene como objetivo posicionarse ni a favor ni en contra de una mayor o menor protección del lobo en España, asunto, sin embargo, de enorme importancia. No es esa la función del Defensor del Pueblo. Considero, no obstante, que plantear la desprotección de esta especie, a través de la Ley 1/2025, de 1 de abril, suscita dudas de constitucionalidad”.

Por otra parte, Ángel Gabilondo ha querido pronunciarse sobre otro aspecto, a su juicio, de “enorme trascendencia” para el éxito de las medidas dirigidas a la conservación del lobo: “la necesidad de que, correlativamente a su protección, las administraciones públicas hagan efectivo un sistema justo y eficiente de medidas de compensación de los daños causados por los ataques de los lobos al ganado, y de ayudas eficaces y suficientes destinadas a la adopción de medidas preventivas frente a dichos ataques”.

Dispositivos de protección a víctimas de violencia de género

Sobre los problemas técnicos generados por los dispositivos electrónicos para el seguimiento del cumplimiento de las penas y medidas de seguridad impuestas en los casos de violencia de género, Ángel Gabilondo ha asegurado que la institución Defensor del Pueblo tiene conocimiento de estos problemas desde el año 2013 y que se ha venido recibiendo quejas por el funcionamiento de estos dispositivos en los últimos años.

El Defensor del Pueblo ha destacado que la institución siempre “ha puesto en el centro la situación y las necesidades de las víctimas”, y ha querido “afrontar los problemas de estos servicios desde una perspectiva global, en la que se investigan no solo las pulseras anti maltrato, o el sistema COMETA, sino todos los sistemas de asistencia telemática a las víctimas de violencia de género que se han creado por parte del Estado para dar protección a las mujeres víctimas que cuentan con órdenes de protección, alejamiento o prohibiciones de comunicación, ya sea como medidas cautelares o como penas”.

Durante su intervención en la Comisión, Ángel Gabilondo se ha referido a las 16 quejas recibidas en la institución sobre estos sistemas, divididas por épocas y temáticas, y ha apuntado que todas ellas han sido reflejadas en los informes anuales y han derivado en recomendaciones y sugerencias con propuestas de mejoras que ha ido asumiendo el sistema de protección. El Defensor del Pueblo ha destacado que las actuaciones de la institución han conseguido, entre otras cosas, mejoras en la tecnología de los dispositivos; en la coordinación de los servicios de protección; en los protocolos para incluir a víctimas de violencia sexual; en los sistemas de comunicación entre juzgados y víctimas, etc.

Ángel Gabilondo ha abogado por “seguir trabajando para que se cumplan los compromisos adquiridos en el Pacto de Estado Contra la Violencia de Género, de febrero del 2025, y conseguir un sistema eficaz y completo de garantías”.

Precio de los alquileres

En relación al precio del alquiler de la vivienda, el Defensor del Pueblo repasó las actuaciones realizadas en materia de vivienda y ha recordado que en el último año se recibieron 822 quejas sobre esta materia. En su comparecencia ha explicado los motivos más frecuentes de estas quejas. Estas versaban sobre las dificultades en el acceso a una vivienda y mantenimiento de la  misma; el retraso en las ayudas al alquiler; la escasez de vivienda protegida; desahucios; ocupaciones ilegales; suspensión de lanzamientos, y dilaciones judiciales.

El Defensor del Pueblo ha destacado que, además de remitir las quejas a las administraciones competentes, ha trasladado “la consideración de que parece evidente la necesidad de incrementar la oferta de viviendas, singularmente las de carácter público y protegidas -y que esa protección sea permanente-, dado los elevados precios de la vivienda en propiedad y en alquiler”.

Para Ángel Gabilondo es imprescindible “que las administraciones públicas, cada una en el ámbito de sus respectivas competencias, actúen con la mayor determinación en la promoción de las condiciones necesarias y en la adopción de las normas pertinentes para hacer realidad el derecho a disfrutar de un vivienda digna y adecuada”. Al respecto, sugiere el Defensor del Pueblo que “las administraciones deberían utilizar las herramientas que contiene la vigente Ley de Vivienda 12/2023, de 24 de mayo” y que en este asunto, “ha de primar el interés general, que ha de ser común y compartido, lo que requiere amplios consensos y acuerdos”.

Giovedì 20 novembre 2025 a Bruxelles si svolgerà l’evento “Difesa civica in Europa: diritti, territori, autonomie – Il ruolo dei Difensori civici nell’Unione Europea multilivello”, un appuntamento di rilievo europeo organizzato dal Coordinamento nazionale dei Difensori Civici delle Regioni e delle Province Autonome italiane in collaborazione con l’Ufficio del Difensore civico della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano. I lavori si svolgeranno presso la sede di Rappresentanza della Regione europea Tirolo – Alto Adige – Trentino e riuniranno Ombudsman, rappresentanti istituzionali ed esperti provenienti da numerosi Paesi europei.

L’apertura sarà affidata alla Difensora civica della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Veronika Meyer, che sottolinea il valore dell’iniziativa:
“In territori plurilingue e multiculturali la tutela dei diritti richiede ascolto, sensibilità e strumenti adeguati. L’incontro di Bruxelles dimostra che la cooperazione tra Ombudsman europei non è solo utile, ma necessaria per affrontare insieme le sfide della società contemporanea. Condividere pratiche e prospettive significa rafforzare la fiducia dei cittadini nelle istituzioni e migliorare la qualità della nostra democrazia.”

Seguiranno i saluti istituzionali di Federica Favi, Ambasciatore d’Italia in Belgio, dei Parlamentari europei Herbert Dorfmann e Paolo Inselvini, nonché di Guido Giusti, Vicepresidente del Coordinamento nazionale dei Difensori civici italiani e Difensore civico dell’Emilia-Romagna.

La prima sessione, “La difesa civica in Europa: convergenze e prospettive”, offrirà un ampio confronto tra autorevoli rappresentanti europei. Tra i relatori:

• Maria Stylianou-Lottides, Ombudswoman di Cipro e figura di riferimento internazionale,

• Mehmet Akarca, Chief Ombudsman della Turchia,

• Jürg Trachsel, Ombudsman del Cantone di Zurigo,

• Xavier Cañada Bonaetxea, Ombudsman di Andorra,

• Jordi Palou Loverdos, Vice Difensore Generale della Catalogna,

• Anna Pianura, Direttrice dell’Ufficio del Difensore civico della Provincia autonoma di Trento.

La sessione sarà moderata dal Difensore civico della Regione Abruzzo, Umberto Di Primio.

La seconda sessione, dedicata al tema “Autonomie, multilinguismo e diritti”, metterà in luce esperienze territoriali di tutela dei cittadini in contesti plurilingue. Interverranno:

• Priska Garbin, responsabile del Centro antidiscriminazioni della Provincia di Bolzano,

• Marlene Hardt, Mediatrice della Comunità germanofona del Belgio,

• Santiago Serrano, Mediatore del Dipartimento della Senna-Saint-Denis (Francia),

• David Bondia, Difensore civico della Città di Barcellona,

• Adele Squillaci, Difensora civica della Regione Valle d’Aosta,

• Fabrizio Schettini, Difensore civico della Regione Umbria.

La sessione sarà condotta dal Difensore civico della Sardegna, Marco Enrico.

Le conclusioni saranno affidate a Marino Fardelli, Presidente del Coordinamento nazionale dei Difensori civici italiani e Difensore civico della Regione Lazio, che evidenzia l’importanza del ruolo comune dei Difensori civici in Europa:
“L’Europa della difesa civica cresce attraverso il dialogo, il confronto e la capacità di mettere in rete esperienze diverse. Bruxelles rappresenta il luogo ideale per riaffermare la centralità dei diritti dei cittadini e il ruolo essenziale dei Difensori civici nel garantire trasparenza, equità e partecipazione democratica. Il Coordinamento italiano è orgoglioso di contribuire a questo percorso comune, portando l’esperienza delle Regioni e delle autonomie locali italiane nel contesto multilivello europeo.”

L’incontro si concluderà con un momento di networking e con il trasferimento presso la sede dell’incontro ENO. È prevista la traduzione simultanea in italiano, tedesco e inglese, per consentire la più ampia e piena partecipazione di tutti gli ospiti europei.

The strategy sets out how the Ombudsman's Office intends to achieve its goals in the coming years and the principles and values that will guide its work.

Webstory