Published March 05, 2025

Often the Office is requested by the media for information resulting from investigations conducted by the Ombudsman and the Commissioners. 

By virtue of Art 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1995, information  from investigations of the Ombudsman and the Commissioners is not only confidential but also secret.

The source of this provision is Art 21 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 of New Zealand.

The Office is therefore precluded from giving any such information from investigations even if requested by the media.

The obligation of secrecy on the Office is not only crucial but in the very interest of complainants and respondents (the public service and/or public administration) alike.  It ensures that during investigations information is provided to the Ombudsman and to the Commissioners without fear of prejudice of any nature.

__________________________________

L-Uffiċċju tal-Ombudsman ma jistax jagħti tagħrif li jirriżulta waqt investigazzjonijiet

L-Uffiċċju tal-Ombudsman spiss ikollu rikjesti mill-midja sabiex jagħti tagħrif li jkun f`investigazzjonijiet li jkunu saru mill-Ombudsman u mill-Kummissarji.

L-Art 21(1) tal-Att tal-1995 dwar l-Ombudsman 1995 jgħid li t-tagħrif tal-investigazzjonijiet tal-Ombudsman u tal-Kummissarji mhux biss huwa kunfidenzjali iżda sigriet.

Il-mudell ta` din id-dispożizzjoni huwa l-Art 21 tal-Ombudsmen Act 1975 ta` New Zealand.

L-Uffiċċju tal-Ombudsman huwa prekluż milli jagħti kull tip ta’ informazzjoni li toħroġ minn investigazzjonijiet anke jekk it-talba ssir mill-midja.

L-obbligu tas-segretezza mpost fuq l-Uffiċċju huwa kruċjali u huwa fl-interess kemm tal-persuni li jagħmlu l-ilment iżda wkoll tas-servizz pubbliku u/jew l-amministrazzjoni li jkunu jridu jwieġbu għall-ilment.  Is-segretezza tat-tagħrif tiswa sabiex dan ikun jista` jingħata mingħajr biża' ta' preġudizzju ta' kwalunkwe 

From Office of the Ombudsman 

Published on 5 March 2025

Last updated on 5 March 2025

A member of our Complaints Team will be in Loughrea Family and Community Resource Centre on Thursday 27 March. This is a once-off event open to the public, and we will be available to take complaints about public bodies and provide advice on dealing with any complaint about a public service.

These include:

• government departments

• local authorities

• the Health Service Executive (HSE)

• agencies, such as charities and voluntary bodies, that deliver health and social services on behalf of the HSE

• public hospitals

• publicly funded third-level education bodies

• public and private nursing homes

Before complaining to the Ombudsman:

• You must have tried to resolve your complaint with the body before contacting us.

How to complain to a public service provider

• Please bring any information with you to support your complaint such as letters, forms, or reference numbers

• The Ombudsman cannot take complaints about consumer matters, financial products, private pensions or An Garda Síochána.

Ombudsman Complaint Clinic

Thursday 27 March 2025 (10am-1pm and 2pm-4pm)

Loughrea Family and Community Resource Centre

Pigott's Street Loughrea

H62 PV02 Co Galway

"If we want to be truly inclusive, we have a never-ending task ahead of us," underlined Deputy Human Rights Ombudsman Dr. Dijana Možina Zupanc today, 28 February, at a conference in honour of the first Inclusion Day in the Republic of Slovenia. In her contribution to the National Assembly, she pointed out, among other things, the many open areas that we as a society must address if we want to become truly inclusive, and emphasised that the basis of inclusion is respect for the human rights of everyone.

"At the Ombudsman, we constantly point out the importance of respecting human rights as a key element of an inclusive society. We are the voice of those who are often overlooked by society," she said, pointing to the example of a woman who was not recognised as having an occupational disease due to a lack of proper documentation, which affected her rights. Such cases are a reminder of systemic shortcomings for which the Ombudsman demands solutions, she stressed.

Although progress can be seen in some areas, there are still many challenges, such as the social gap between social groups, poverty, and social exclusion, especially among the elderly and the unemployed. "That is why we at the Human Rights Ombudsman so often emphasise the need to strengthen social programmes and increase the accessibility of society. This is not only measured in the physical accessibility of facilities, which we at the Ombudsman have been particularly concerned with in recent years and have warned authorities, including the government, about the consequences of ignoring regulations and conventions. It is also measured in accessibility to services, which we have drawn attention to, for example with our analysis of the accessibility and responsiveness of general and family medicine clinics, which has shown many anomalies in the system," she pointed out.

She also reminded Assembly Members that while digitalisation and advanced technological solutions bring many advantages, they can also become a source of exclusion, especially for those who find it difficult to keep up with rapid technological changes. "That is also why we at the Ombudsman draw attention to the need for solutions that will take into account the needs of all residents and promote accessibility and equal inclusion," she said.

She also drew attention to the numerous challenges faced by people with disabilities, to decision-making on issues relating to vulnerable groups without their participation, and to the challenges in integrating minorities and immigrants. She assessed that by changing legislation alone, but without changes in the mindset of society, we will not achieve true equality. "That is why awareness-raising, education, and the strengthening of critical thinking are key, starting from childhood," warned Deputy Ombudsman Dr. Možina Zupanc.

She also pointed out the importance of (more) respectful public discourse and assessed that without a culture of dialogue, we cannot truly change society towards lasting prosperity and progress for all. According to the Ombudsman's findings, the erosion of accountability is also an important challenge that needs to be addressed. "Unreasonably long and complicated decision-making procedures, unequal treatment and ineffective supervision, lack of an obligation to explain, and I could go on and on. In short, the violation of the principle of good governance is one of the most common violations of human rights and all of this is also a reflection of the state (values) of society," the Deputy Ombudsman added. She also emphasised that an inclusive society is based on trust, dialogue, and a community effort for justice. "Slovenians have already proven that we are a socially responsible community that cares about the well-being of others. By joining forces, we can co-create a society based on respect and dignity for all its members. "Let today be the impetus for steps towards a society where diversity becomes a source of strength and dialogue is the key to justice and inclusion," she added.

As a result of the study of one of the cases, the Public Defender identified a systemic flaw in the implementation of public administration. In particular, it has been established that LEPL Tbilisi Municipality Transport and Urban Development Agency imposed liability provided for by legislation on individuals for stopping vehicles at pedestrian and cyclist crossings or closer than 5 meters in front of them in such a way that no appropriate device was used to measure this distance and/or the Agency did not have appropriate methodology.

As a result of such flawed administration, decisions on imposing liability on individuals were made without appropriate examination of circumstances.

The Agency considered the proposal of the Public Defender and, according to the information provided by them, the Agency will ensure the introduction of the possibility of measuring the distance between a pedestrian and cyclist crossing and a vehicle stopped in front of it by using a special device. According to the Public Defender, this will ensure that the circumstances of the cases of a number of individuals are properly examined and justified and lawful decisions are made in the future.

According to the Chancellor of Justice, the Social Insurance Board must pay the guardian’s child support if the court has deprived or suspended the parents' custody rights and appointed a guardian for the child.

When appointing a guardian for a child, the court has already assessed that the child's parents are not fulfilling their obligation under the Family Law Act to raise and care for the child. Therefore, the Social Insurance Board must base its decision on the court ruling in the civil case.

The Chancellor of Justice emphasized that the law does not grant the Social Insurance Board the right to consider other circumstances when determining the support, such as whether the parents agreed to the restriction of their custody rights, whether the parents and child communicate, or whether the parents could request the court to restore their suspended custody rights. It is also arbitrary to conclude from these circumstances that the parents are exercising custody rights. The agency cannot refuse to grant support on the grounds that the guardian could demand maintenance from the parents on behalf of the child. Parents whose custody rights have been restricted by a court still have an obligation to provide maintenance for the child, but the right to receive guardian’s child support does not depend on maintenance received from the parents.

The Chancellor of Justice requested that the Social Insurance Board pay guardian’s child support to all children who have been assigned a guardian and whose parents have had their custody rights revoked or suspended by the court. This also applies when the court has significantly restricted parental custody rights in both scope and content, and the child is being raised by the guardian. Exceptions are possible if compelling arguments refute the position presented in the court ruling. The Chancellor of Justice also requested that the agency review all decisions denying guardian’s child support made after the change in the support payment practice.

More details on the Chancellor of Justice’s position can be read here.