In the specific case of the complainant, the Ministry of Justice exceeded the statutory deadline from Article 222 of the ZUP for issuing a decision in a renewed procedure and thereby violated the principle of legal security and the principle of good management and the principle of economy from Article 14 of the ZUP, which stipulates that the procedure must be conducted quickly, with the lowest possible costs and the lowest possible delay for clients and other participants in the procedure.

* * *

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) considered a complaint regarding an allegation of lengthy decision-making by the Ministry of Justice (MP) in a renewed procedure for dismissing a court interpreter.

On the basis of Articles 6 and 28 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP) in connection with Paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the same law, the Ombudsman contacted the MP with a written inquiry and, based on the response received, concluded that the MP took more than nine months to issue a decision in the renewed the procedure after the decision to allow the renewal of the procedure was issued.

Based on the above, the Ombudsman assessed that the renewed procedure in the complainant's specific case took too long and considered the complaint to be well-founded. In relation to the lengthy process of consideration of the subject matter, the MP explained that the lengthy consideration of the matter occurred due to the complexity of the subject matter, during the consideration of which it was necessary to carefully examine demanding legal issues before making a final decision in the subject matter. The MP also explained that the length of the procedure for dealing with the case in question was also influenced by the increased scope of the authority's work in the field of court experts, court appraisers, and court interpreters due to the regular verification of their expertise (1,400 persons) and the performance of administrative and other work for the Expert Council for Judicial Expertise, Judicial Valuation and Judicial Interpretation as the highest professional coordinating body in the field of judicial expertise, judicial valuation, and judicial interpretation, whereby the transfer of tasks to other civil servants was not possible due to understaffing.

The Ombudsman cannot accept the stated position of the MP. Due to systemic reasons (the authority emphasised the increased volume of the its work and the lack of staff), the procedures may take longer for a while, but they can no longer be referred to when the time required for organisational and/or personnel adaptation of the authority has passed.

The Ombudsman also noted that he did not receive a response or an explanation from the MP regarding the reason why the decision was not issued within the statutory deadline, nor was it defined. On the basis of the collected data, the Ombudsman assessed that the MP did not respond to the complainant's repeated request, nor did it, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Regulation on Administrative Operations[1], provide him with an explanation of why the decision

was not issued within the statutory deadline, which the Ombudsman considers as a violation of the principle of good governance.

In light of the above, the Ombudsman further called on the MP to respect the provisions of Article 22 of the Decree on Administrative Operations and the basic principles of the ZUP and the deadlines for decision-making prescribed therein.

In relation to the mentioned systemic reasons for the long duration of the procedure, the Ombudsman suggested that the MP consider the possibilities of additional organizational and/or personnel reinforcement.

The MP responded to the Ombudsman's proposal and explained that within the framework of the Ministry's competent services, activities are already underway in the direction of additional personnel reinforcements at the Directorate for Legislation on Organisation and for Justice Administration, with which the MP will consistently perform its administrative tasks in accordance with the principles of economy and good management, to which it is bound according to the ZUP, and in this context also ensured consistent compliance with statutory deadlines in all matters in which the MP decides on the rights, obligations, or legal benefits of the parties, which the Ombudsman welcomes.

At the same time, the MP also explained that, in this light, certain organisational measures were already adopted in 2023, with which the work process was already optimised (the organisational structure of the directorate was changed, which enabled a more appropriate distribution of work tasks and thus greater work efficiency), and systemic changes to the legislation in the field of the work of court experts, court appraisers, and court interpreters are also being prepared, which will mean both the simplification of certain procedures and the administrative relief of the Ministry, which will significantly contribute to the more efficient work of the body, which the Ombudsman also welcomes.14.5-9/2023

“The adoption of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill by the UK Parliament raises major issues about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally”, said Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. “The United Kingdom government should refrain from removing people under the Rwanda policy and reverse the Bill's effective infringement of judicial independence”, he underlined.

“Managing asylum and migration is undoubtedly a complex endeavour for states, but it must always be done in full compliance with international standards. In this regard, I am concerned that the Rwanda Bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases. Specifically, the Bill prevents individuals faced with removal to Rwanda from accessing remedies for potential violations of the absolute prohibition of refoulement, while it also significantly excludes the ability of UK courts to fully and independently scrutinise the issues brought before them.

The Bill was proposed by the UK government in conjunction with a new treaty with Rwanda, following the UK Supreme Court’s finding, in November 2023, that persons removed to Rwanda faced a real risk of being sent onwards to their countries of origin, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. The UK is prohibited from subjecting, even indirectly, people to refoulement, including under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, under the Refugee Convention, and under a range of other international instruments.

While the UK-Rwanda treaty contains certain provisions aimed at the prevention of refoulement, the Supreme Court’s judgment shows the importance of ensuring that people can seek independent judicial scrutiny of the alleged safety of a removal destination. However, the Rwanda Bill prevents individuals from having any meaningful recourse to UK courts in relation to the key question of refoulement, such as by excluding the examination of any claim that Rwanda will not act in accordance with its treaty commitments. The Bill requires decision makers to regard Rwanda as ‘safe’ for removal, regardless of the specific facts on the ground. It explicitly prohibits UK courts from considering the risk of Rwanda sending people onwards to other countries, as well as the fairness and effectiveness of asylum procedures in Rwanda. UK courts also cannot draw upon any interpretation of international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, whilst large parts of the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to that Convention in UK law, are disapplied. Finally, the Bill gives authority to a Minister of the Crown to decide whether to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to removal to Rwanda, notwithstanding that such measures are binding and that failure to comply with them undermines the right to individual petition guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Rwanda Bill’s adoption is another representation of an ongoing trend towards externalisation of asylum and migration policy in Europe, which is a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees. This is an issue that will have my early and close attention as Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.”

When: 23 April 2024 - 24 April 2024

Where: Online, Austria

FRA will hold its regular meeting with its National Liaison Officers (NLOs) from 23 to 24 April online. The NLOs are FRA’s main contact points in Member States and in observer States to the work of FRA.

The meeting will host an exchange of views between NLOs and FRA Director Sirpa Rautio.

Various areas of the Agency’s work will be discussed with FRA experts. These include migration, environmental sustainability, EU Enlargement and the FRA’s Fundamental Rights Report.

In addition, Belgium and Hungary will provide updates on the fundamental rights priorities during their current and upcoming Presidencies of the Council of the EU.

In a continuing effort to foster civic awareness among students, the Office of the Ombudsman welcomed students and their teachers from St Jeanne Antide College, Immaculate Conception Secondary School. The visit was part of a targeted initiative to deepen students’ understanding of the Ombudsman’s role and the importance of good governance.

The visit included a detailed presentation by the Commissioner for Education, Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, who delved into the Ombudsman’s role and functions. The Commissioner emphasised the Ombudsman’s role as a mediator between the complainant and public institutions, which is a significant part of the institution’s contribution to ensuring fairness and justice in public administration.

During the session, emphasis was placed on the Rule of Law. Students were informed about their rights and duties, the importance of a transparent and accountable public sector, and the need to uphold democratic values and to insist on efficient governance.

At the end of the session, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon, highlighted the importance of such initiatives, stressing the need to understand the Ombudsman’s role and the overarching benefits of good public administration and the protection of rights.

The students and their teachers were actively engaged throughout the session. They took the opportunity to ask questions and showed an interest in learning more about their civic responsibilities.

This visit is part of a series of educational efforts by the Office of the Ombudsman to prepare Malta’s young people to become informed citizens, equipped to contribute positively to society. Such initiatives underscore the Office of the Ombudsman’s commitment not only to overseeing public administration but also to educating the public about this vital oversight role.

A woman whose father died in Causeway Hospital complained that staff should have monitored him more closely.

Read our full investigation report here.