From Office of the Ombudsman 

Published on 27 April 2026

Last updated on 27 April 2026

We have published our new Statement of Strategy - Towards 2030. The strategy sets out our Vision, Values, Strategic Themes and Objectives bringing us up to 2030.

The theme – Towards 2030 – is underpinned by our Vision and Values, which are:

• Independence

• People Focus

• Fairness

• Respect

• Integrity

Towards 2030: Statement of Strategy

The Ombudsman, Mr. Endrit Shabani, received in an official meeting the Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination, Mr. Robert Gajda. This meeting reconfirmed the common will to consolidate bridges of cooperation in the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms.

At the center of the discussion was the need for a coordinated approach to the complex challenges dictated by the digital age, where the protection of privacy and human dignity remain exposed to new forms of infringement. Our institutions remain maximally committed to identifying and addressing with rigor any abusive phenomenon or behavior that conflicts with the principles of good administration.

During the meeting, perspectives were exchanged on the strengthening of protective mechanisms, with the aim of guaranteeing an environment where every citizen of Albania is treated with integrity, transparency and full respect by the public administration. The synergy of our actions remains an unwavering priority to ensure that the law and human dignity triumph over any contemptuous practices.

Parliamentary Ombudsman Jari Råman has assessed the procedure of the Finnish Defence Forces where chairpersons of personnel organisations in the military sector have been paid wages while on leave of absence. The personnel organisations had returned the paid wages to the Defence Forces. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, this arrangement violated the principle of procedures being bound to purpose, which is a part of the legal principles of administration, and the requirement of the equal treatment of public officials.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated the matter based on an article published in Ilta-Sanomat on 20 October 2024. The Defence Forces had granted three public officials leave of absence while they acted as chairpersons of military personnel organisations and paid the chairpersons wages during the leave of absence. The personnel organisations had returned the wages to the Defence Forces, including indirect wage costs.

The Ombudsman estimates that the primary purpose of the arrangement was to retain benefits related to military pension. This kind of arrangement had to be considered to be contrary to the principle of procedures being bound to purpose, which is a part of the legal principles of administration.

Information concerning the matter was requested from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Command. The received reports could not convincingly lay out how the wage payment arrangement concerning the chairpersons of military personnel organisations contributes to the management of the tasks assigned to the Defence Forces under the Act on the Defence Forces. The Parliamentary Ombudsman agreed with the assessment made by the Ministry of Defence that it is not decisive whether the chairperson is still actively engaged in their military employment while managing their trusteeship tasks or whether they have an assignment in a wartime formation, which were justifications presented in the report by the Defence Command and in organisation-specific protocols.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also found the Ministry of Finance’s view justified in that the procedure blurred the lines between paid and unpaid leave of absence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman assessed that the content of the wage arrangement partly matched the characteristics of paid leave of absence, even though it had been formulated as a separate contractual arrangement. Public officials on leave of absence had been paid wages that the personnel organisation had returned alongside indirect wage costs to the Defence Forces, which resulted in said public officials remaining within the scope of the military pension system.

In addition, the arrangement resulted in different treatment of the chairpersons compared to other public officials. The chairpersons retained their military pension benefits during the leave of absence, while other public officials in the Defence Forces who were employed by another employer during their leave of absence did not. The Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that there were no acceptable grounds for such exceptional treatment.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has brought his view to the attention of the Defence Command. In addition, the Ombudsman considered it appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to take action in response to the matter, and the ministry was asked to inform the Parliamentary Ombudsman of subsequent measures by 2 October 2026.

Decision EOAK/5821/2024 is available (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi

Further information is available from the Principal Legal Adviser acting as head of division Kristian Holman, tel. +358 9 432 3368.

On 28 and 29 April 2026, Ivan Šelih, Deputy Human Rights Ombudsman and Head of the National Preventive Mechanism, and Ana Polutnik, member of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), attended a conference entitled Mental Health in Detention in Strasbourg. The conference focused on addressing mental health challenges in places of deprivation of liberty across Europe, with particular emphasis on the role of NPMs and Council of Europe standards.

Organised by the Council of Europe as part of the European NPM Forum, the conference highlighted the high prevalence of mental health disorders among detained persons, particularly depression, anxiety and self-harming behaviour. Special attention was given to vulnerable groups, including children and adolescents, women, persons dependent on illicit substances, foreign nationals and persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities, who are at greater risk of receiving inadequate treatment.

Discussions highlighted key systemic shortcomings, including a shortage of qualified staff, inadequate mental health assessments, limited continuity of care and the excessive use of isolation and coercive measures. It was also noted that inadequate healthcare may constitute a violation of human rights.

Current Council of Europe recommendations were presented, including those of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which emphasise the importance of a comprehensive and dignified approach to mental healthcare, as well as the need for additional staff training. The importance of integrated approaches was also highlighted, including effective monitoring, inter-institutional cooperation and the exchange of good practices.

The conference was held in an interactive format, enabling participants to exchange experiences and discuss practical challenges and possible solutions. Particular attention was devoted to the protection of children in detention, including ensuring appropriate conditions, informed consent, contact with family members and the prevention of harm.

Participation in the conference contributed to a better understanding of current challenges and strengthened awareness of the importance of systematic monitoring and continuous improvement of practices in the field of mental health protection in detention settings. This is an area to which the National Preventive Mechanism in Slovenia, operating within the framework of the Human Rights Ombudsman, pays particular attention.

The new Law on the Protection of Equality and the Prohibition of Discrimination (Official Gazette No. 002/26) marks a significant step forward in strengthening the legal framework against discrimination in Montenegro. Unlike its predecessor, which primarily focused on prohibiting discriminatory practices, this law explicitly introduces the protection and promotion of equality as its primary objective (Article 1). By doing so, it shifts from a reactive stance to a proactive one, encouraging institutions and society to actively promote equal opportunities. This modern approach aligns national legislation with European standards and international best practices.

This blog post will first explain how the new legislation came to be. It will then guide the reader through the key innovations of the new law, highlighting how it expands protections, clarifies definitions, strengthens enforcement mechanisms, and empowers institutions. Moreover, this blog post will clarify how the new legislation strengthens the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Equality Body in Montenegro. By the end, the reader will understand why this law represents a qualitative leap in safeguarding equality and combating discrimination.

The evolution of equality legislation in Montenegro

The first Anti-Discrimination Law in Montenegro was adopted in 2010, and later amended, including a version from 2014. This law defined discrimination as any unjustified distinction or unequal treatment based on gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics, thereby laying the foundation for the protection of human rights and alignment with European standards.

Over the years, practice has shown that there were shortcomings in the implementation of the law – particularly regarding the effectiveness of protection and sanctioning of discriminatory practices. There was a need to strengthen institutional mechanisms and to more precisely define forms of discrimination.

When the legislative process for the new Law on the Protection of Equality and the Prohibition of Discrimination started, a representative of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms was included in the work of the drafting group and, in that capacity, contributed as an expert to the creation of a more effective framework for the protection of human rights.

What has changed: the main provisions of the new equality legislation

Expanded Grounds of Discrimination

The grounds of discrimination have been expanded and further specified, including, inter alia, gender reassignment and/or sex characteristics, genetic characteristics, and life partnership. In this way, the law is aligned with contemporary European standards and the practice of international bodies.

Clearer Definitions of Discrimination

The new law defines the forms of discrimination in a more systematic and clearer manner. In particular, the definitions of harassment and hate speech have been strengthened, and a new provision has been introduced defining reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

Furthermore, the law provides a more detailed regulation of aggravated forms of discrimination, including multiple, intersectional, prolonged, and systemic discrimination, which were not clearly regulated under the previous law.

Namely, the new Law recognizes intersectional discrimination and defines it as an aggravated form of discrimination. Under the new Law, intersectional discrimination is considered an aggravated form of discrimination when it is committed against the same person or group of persons on multiple grounds referred to in Article 1 of this Law, which interact simultaneously in such a way that they cannot be separated.

Furthermore, the Law also recognizes systemic discrimination as an aggravated form of discrimination, where it is carried out in a comprehensive and continuous manner and is deeply rooted in social behavior, against a group of persons, including through legal rules, policies, practices, or prevailing cultural attitudes in the public or private sector that create relative disadvantages for certain groups of persons and privileges for other groups of persons.

Aggravated Forms of Discrimination

The Law clearly stipulates that aggravated forms of discrimination shall be considered aggravating circumstances, which the court shall take into account when determining the penalty and assessing the amount of compensation for damages.

Protection Against Victimization

Protection against victimization has been expanded and clarified so as to cover not only persons who report discrimination, but also those who provide support, give testimony, or refuse to comply with an order to engage in discriminatory conduct. This represents a significant improvement compared to the previous law and has a preventive effect.

Supervision and Sanctions

The new law provides for more detailed supervision mechanisms, an obligation to maintain records, as well as a stricter and more precisely structured sanctions framework, including the possibility of imposing protective measures (such as the publication of decisions, prohibition of activities, etc.).

Burden of Proof

The provision on the burden of proof is consistent with European Union Directives, such as Council Directive 2000/43/EC, so that if the defendant adduces facts from which direct or indirect discrimination can be presumed, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the principle of equal treatment has not been violated.

Collective Lawsuits

The new Law recognizes the possibility of filing a collective lawsuit for protection against discrimination. In essence, or with a legitimate interest in protecting a certain group’s rights, may file a lawsuit if there is evidence that the defendant’s actions violated the rights of multiple people in that group. This requires the written consent of the group, but it can be done without consent if the identities of the individuals are unknown or if it serves to promote the interests of protected groups or human rights.

Remedies

In terms of the scope of remedies, the new Law explicitly includes annulment of discriminatory administrative acts or other administrative actions as a possible remedy.

Other provisions

Finally, the new law regulates specific competences concerning the protection of the rights of mobile workers of the European Union and cooperation with the competent authorities of other states, thereby improving the alignment of the national protection system with European Union law.

A stronger role for the Equality Body

Importantly, the Law on the Protection of Equality and the Prohibition of Discrimination strengthens the role of the National Equality Body as a key advocate for equality and a protector of the right to non-discrimination. It does so by expanding and more precisely elaborating the competences of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms. Now, the Equality Body can initiate court proceedings and participate as an intervener in cases with potential systemic implications. The Protector can also initiate a collective lawsuit for protection against discrimination, with the prior consent of the discriminated individual or group. Moreover, the new law strengthens the preventive and promotional role of the Protector through enhanced powers related to the collection and analysis of data on discrimination, as well as reporting on discrimination.

Currently, the functioning of the Protector of Human Rights is defined by the Law on the Ombudsman, which is only partially aligned with the 2024 EU Directives on Standards for Equality Bodies and deviates from the Paris Principles and the standards of the Venice Commission. New legislation focused on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms is expected to be finalised within the next two months, completing the alignment with the EU legal framework. The new legislation has been put forward to achieve an appropriate level of independence and autonomy of the institution so that it can adequately perform the role of a national human rights institution and fulfil conditions in advancing from “B” to “A” status within GANHRI. At the same time, the new law would need to meet expectations regarding compliance with EU directives in terms of the requirements set for Equality Bodies.

Previous experience shows that this is sometimes a difficult and uncertain legislative process, in which the main responsibility lies with the executive and legislative branches of power, with the executive being obliged to establish such a draft law that will leave no ambiguity as to what the responsible authorities must do in order to obtain an appropriate legal model. However, full implementation of equality standards so that the national legislation is harmonized with EU law is a primary obligation and political goal of the State of Montenegro, which has been recognized as a leader among candidate countries in the European integration process.

Conclusion: A stronger legal framework for a fairer society

The new Law on the Protection of Equality and the Prohibition of Discrimination represents a qualitative advancement in the fight against discrimination, moving from prohibition to proactive promotion of equality. By expanding grounds, clarifying definitions, regulating aggravated forms, and empowering institutions, it creates a robust framework for equal .

The primary objective of the Law is no longer merely the prohibition of discrimination, but also the active protection and promotion of equality. The Law addresses the needs of modern society by expanding the grounds of discrimination to include areas such as genetic characteristics, gender identity (specifically gender reassignment and/or sex characteristics), and life partnership. This framework provides stronger institutional support and security. Furthermore, the competences of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms have been expanded and more precisely defined, facilitating easier access to justice and more effective protection of citizens’ rights.

The views on this blog are always the authors’ and they do not necessarily reflect Equinet’s position.