Anlässlich des tragischen Todes eines Häftlings der Justizanstalt Hirtenberg macht Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz darauf aufmerksam, dass jahrelange Empfehlungen der Volksanwaltschaft hinsichtlich der Ausstattung besonders gesicherter Hafträume ignoriert wurden.

„Die kolportierten Vorwürfe zu Misshandlungen eines Häftlings durch Beamte in der Justizanstalt Hirtenberg, der schließlich verstarb, sind erschütternd. Die Ermittlung der Staatsanwaltschaft ist abzuwarten. Doch einige aus den Medien bekannte Informationen schildern Aspekte eines Systemversagens, auf das wir seit langem hinweisen. Es hätte nicht soweit kommen müssen, wenn Empfehlungen der Volksanwaltschaft umgesetzt worden wären“, betont die für den Strafvollzug zuständige Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz.

„Mit einer derartig starken psychischen Erkrankung war der Betroffene in einer Justizanstalt fehl am Platz. Regelmäßig appellieren wir, die notwendigen Ressourcen zu schaffen, um solchen Insassen Betreuung in psychiatrischen Einrichtungen zu ermöglichen“, so die Volksanwältin. Weiters wurde der Mann laut Medienberichten in einem sogenannten „Besonders gesicherten Haftraum“ angehalten, in dem sich eine Liegestelle aus Beton befindet, an der er sich schwer verletzte. „Seit Jahren empfehlen wir dem Justizministerium, bei der Ausstattung der besonders gesicherten Hafträume auf die Prävention von Selbstverletzungen oder Suizidversuchen zu achten. Diese Hafträume müssen über eine gefahrenfrei benutzbare Sitz- und Liegemöglichkeit verfügen. Statt Beton-Liegestellen empfehlen wir Liegequader aus Hartschaum. Der tragische Fall Hirtenberg zeigt, dass unsere Empfehlungen leider nicht umgesetzt wurden. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass dieser traurige Anlass zu einem Umdenken führt.“

Eine zweite externe Prüfung des Falls, wie von Justizministerin Anna Sporrer angekündigt, hält Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz für sehr sinnvoll: „Die Volksanwaltschaft steht als unabhängiges Kontrollorgan des Parlaments mit ihrer ganzen Expertise jederzeit dafür zur Verfügung.“

"Es hätte nicht soweit kommen müssen, wenn jahrelange Empfehlungen der Volksanwaltschaft umgesetzt worden wären", kritisiert Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz.

Das Anzeigen dieses Inhalts ist mit Ihren aktuellen Cookie Einstellungen im Zuge der DSGVO nicht möglich. Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der Datenschutzerklärung.

Question:

Can a public body refuse to give reasons as to why it will not implement the Ombudsman`s recommendations ?

Answer:

No

Why ?

Across democratic Ombudsman systems, public bodies are ordinarily expected to give reasons when they decline to implement an ombudsman’s recommendations. An Ombudsman is entitled to receive, examine, and assess those reasons. 

When he investigates, both in the case of complaints submitted by persons or on his own initiative, the Ombudsman can make recommendations to Government, as broadly defined in the Ombudsman Act 1995 [as amended] (Chapter 385 of the Laws of Malta).

The recommendations are not executive in nature nor are they binding orders, but they carry strong moral authority. In Malta the Ombudsman is an oversight institution that enjoys the protection of the Constitution (Art 64A of the Constitution).  Moral authority is not an abstract or academic issue but a matter to be seriously considered by Government (including the public service and the public administration) as it involves (but not only) observance on its part of the principles of good governance, that include accountability. Therefore, although the Ombudsman’s recommendations are not binding, they are not optional in any casual sense and cannot be brushed aside without explanation.

Public bodies have a duty to co-operate with the Ombudsman, which includes responding to investigations, findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman.  

Responding includes stating what steps public bodies have taken or intend to take, in case of acceptance to comply with recommendations, and also includes giving reasons why recommendations will not be implemented. 

If a public body rejects a recommendation and gives reasons, the Ombudsman may examine whether those reasons are factually accurate, legally sound, rational, proportionate and consistent with Art 22(1) and (2) of the Ombudsman Act 1995, and with the principles good administration.

Failure by a public body to provide reasons, or when it provides manifestly inadequate reasons, constitutes a failure to co-operate.  Giving reasons is not a formality, but a serious matter that can be escalated by the Ombudsman first to the Prime Minister and then to the House of Representatives as provided in Art 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1995.

Although the Ombudsman does not have executive authority to compel compliance, he does have authority to scrutinise and criticise a refusal in public.  That authority is inherent in his oversight function that is conferred by the law itself, is essential to maintaining administrative accountability and for the effectiveness of the institution. 

The oversight function of the Ombudsman includes filing another report critical of a refusal to implement, and more so, when the public service and/or the public administration (as public bodies) does not give reasons for refusal to implement recommendations.  

Without such scrutiny, recommendations could be disregarded without accountability.  A reasoned response to recommendations, and the willingness of public bodies to engage seriously with findings — are core indicators of good governance and respect for the rule of law.

In the United Kingdom, the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman are not binding but public bodies are expected to respond and explain acceptance or refusal. They have to notify the Ombudsman of action taken, or the reasons for not complying.  The Ombudsman can examine the reasons and assess whether the reasons for refusal are adequate.  A special report may be sent to Parliament.  Through its Select Committees, the House of Commons may summon the public body to sustain refusal to implement.  

In Canada, both at the provincial and at the federal level, recommendations of Ombudsmen are non-binding, but public bodies have a duty to co-operate with Ombudsmen and give reasons for non-compliance with their recommendations.  Failure to do so is treated as maladministration.  When reasons for refusal are given, Ombudsmen evaluate whether refusal to implement are reasonable, evidence-based, and legally defensible. 

In Australia, both as regards the Commonwealth as well as the State Ombudsmen, public agencies have to justify the non-implementation of recommendations.  

Likewise in New Zealand.  The Ombudsmen Act 1975 (which served as a model for the Malta Ombudsman Act 1995) requires public agencies to advise what steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken following receipt of recommendations from Ombudsmen.  Refusals must be reasoned and the reasons can be reviewed by Ombudsmen.  When reasons are found to be unsatisfactory, Parliament can be alerted.

The effectiveness of an ombudsman system depends upon a structured dialogue between the Ombudsman and public authorities. That dialogue presupposes that recommendations will be taken seriously, that refusals will be reasoned, and that the reasons given will themselves be open to independent scrutiny. 

An interpretation that denies the Ombudsman the right to receive and evaluate reasons for non-implementation, that would permit public bodies to reject recommendations without explanation, or to shield their refusal, would undermine legislative intent and weaken administrative accountability.  

The role of the Ombudsman to secure reasoned engagement when he finds maladministration would be frustrated if public bodies were permitted to treat recommendations as immune from critical review.

When an Ombudsman finds maladministration and recommends a remedy, the public body is entitled to disagree. But it is not entitled to disagree silently, and it is not entitled to disagree unreasonably.  If a public authority can simply decline and close the file, then the Ombudsman system becomes a decorative ornament rather than a constitutional safeguard. 

n 2025, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received a total of 7,321 complaints. This is the second largest number of complaints of all time.  

Case numbers rose in nearly all administrative branches. The largest numbers of complaints concerned social services (1,350), the administrative branch of the police (958) and healthcare (778). 

The number of cases concerning foreign nationals (392) more than tripled from the previous year (117). More than half of them concerned delays in processing at the Finnish Immigration Service.

“During the year under review, I have addressed the situation with the reprimands I have issued in complaints and, more generally, with my own initiatives. I also monitor the impact of the measures that the Finnish Immigration Service and the relevant ministries have reported they have taken to remedy the situation,” says Deputy-Ombudsman Mikko Sarja.

Complaints and own-initiative investigations resolved in 2025

The Ombudsman resolved a total of 7,036 complaints and 53 of his own initiatives during the past year. A total of 741 complaints and 46 own-initiative investigations, more than 10 per cent of all complaints, led to measures taken by the Ombudsman.

A large number of statements were also issued, a total of 148. Fifty-nine cases were investigated on the Ombudsman’s own initiative.

In 2025, 83 inspections were carried out. This figure has changed little over the last few years. Because of the increase in the number of complaints, the number of inspections still remained below the pre-pandemic level.

Jari Råman started as Parliamentary Ombudsman on 1 January 2026

Year 2025 was Petri Jääskeläinen’s last year as Parliamentary Ombudsman, and on 1 January 2026, Jari Råman (LL.D.) started his four-year term of office as Parliamentary Ombudsman.

For further information, please contact Information Officer Citha Dahl, citha.dahl@eduskunta.fi.

Summary of the decision: In a decision several years ago, the Parliamentary Ombudsman called attention to a number of procedures within the Swedish Prison and Probation Service involving cell name plates, and welcomed the agency’s stated intention to look into the matter.

It is now apparent that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service has neither implemented any strategic work to identify alternative solutions for identifying inmates, nor given any consideration to national guidance. The agency has stated that work is still required to develop national guidelines on cell name plates. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is regrettable that this has not been done earlier and expresses surprise that no action whatsoever appears to have been taken concerning the matter

The issue of identifying inmates is complex and involves a difficult weighing up of interests, not least in the present strained situation with increasing numbers of inmates on most wings of Swedish remand prisons and prisons, with inmates sharing cells and many newly recruited prison officers. It therefore appears to the Parliamentary Ombudsman that there is a significant need for guidelines on the use and design of cell name plates.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman assumes that the work of preparing written guidelines on the use of cell name plates in remand prisons and prisons is now underway. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service must ensure that institutions use secure methods for identifying inmates that are also consistent with the rules on secrecy and the processing of personal data, as well as the requirement for enforcement to be designed to counteract the negative consequences of deprivation of liberty.

Press Release

29 January 2026

Adopting a rights-based approach to affordable and energy-efficient housing in the EU

Just and green transition

Environmental and social sustainability

The drive for energy-efficient housing is critical to meet the EU’s climate goals, but it currently risks leaving people behind. A new report from the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) finds that low‑income households, older people and people with disabilities often face barriers when accessing renovation programmes. Tenants are also largely excluded from renovation schemes. Yet, they often live in the least energy-efficient housing and face higher rents or eviction when renovations take place. To address this, the report calls for adopting a human rights-based approach to the energy transition and housing energy policies.

Read report

Buildings are responsible for 34% of energy-related greenhouse emissions in the EU, but 75% of all buildings are not energy-efficient. This underlines the key role housing energy policies can play in tackling climate change. But as house prices have risen by 48% in less than 10 years, quality energy-efficient housing is becoming less affordable for medium- and low-income households.

The report ‘Fundamental rights and housing in the EU’s climate and energy transition’ explores the fundamental rights implications, challenges, gaps, and promising practices when it comes to tackling energy poverty and energy efficiency in housing. It recommends:

• Equal access to renovations: housing renovation measures often rely on purely technical eligibility rules, digital-only procedures or unaffordable co-financing requirements. This inadvertently excludes vulnerable groups, such as low-income households, older people, people with disabilities, those in informal housing and people with low digital or literacy skills. EU Member States should provide targeted outreach and financial support to enable equal access to energy renovations. 
• Stronger safeguards for those in need: efforts to tackle energy poverty and to renovate housing often fail to address the specific needs of low-income households, single parents, or people with disabilities or health issues. National authorities should identify the needs of vulnerable people and take targeted action to address them. 
• Protect tenants’ rights: Over 30% of people in the EU rent property. Many of them are on low incomes and often live in the least energy-efficient housing. Yet, tenants are largely excluded from energy renovation programmes because they typically target landlords. Tenants often bear the costs for renovations by paying higher rents or they face evictions when renovations occur. Member States should protect the rights of tenants and make programmes available to those living in social housing. 
• Consider the needs of people in deprived housing: people living in precarious or informal housing, like Roma settlements, are excluded from renovation programmes and often lack access to energy and electricity. The EU and Member States should address this in anti-poverty and affordable housing measures. 
• Integrating fundamental rights into plans: fundamental rights are rarely considered in national energy and climate plans. Future EU energy and climate rules should require Member States to consider fundamental rights risks and impacts in their national plans. 
• Improve stakeholder engagement: by law, national authorities must consult stakeholders when developing relevant climate and energy policies. In practice, this rarely happens when monitoring or evaluating programmes. Member States should ensure meaningful engagement with relevant stakeholders when designing and implementing policies and show how their input is used. 
• Better access to justice: all Member States have channels for people to complain about issues concerning energy renovations such as inflated costs, poor quality work or excess rent. However, difficulties arise in practice due to the lack of information or clarity about the process. Member States should create independent, transparent and accessible complaints mechanisms. 
• Monitor and collect data: there is no comprehensive EU monitoring framework to evaluate the fundamental rights impact of climate and energy policies. The EU and Member States need to measure the impact of their policies.

The report draws on fieldwork from 10 countries (Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Greece, France, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden) as well as desk research across all EU countries and Albania, North Macedonia, and Serbia. 

Quote from FRA Director Sirpa Rautio:

“Governments need to tackle climate change and energy poverty. Cleaner energy and energy-efficiency in housing can help EU Member States to meet climate goals. But in doing so, governments must also implement their fundamental rights obligations, ensuring those in need are not left behind. Every effort should be made to protect the right to adequate housing, and the right to social security and housing assistance.”

For more, please contact: media@fra.europa.eu / Tel.: +43 1 580 30 642